🚀 go-pugleaf

<Vincent_Z@adobeforums.com> wrote in message
news:3bbb890e.-1@webx.la2eafNXanI

> Okay, so recently I've been converting all tracks to
> 96000/32 because apparantly mastering seems to sound
> better. I am working with tracks from various
> artists/albums. Personally, I can't hear much difference?

Right.

> Is it really worth the time to convert tracks to 96000/32
> from 44000/16.

It's primarily a waste of time. Music  in the 44/16 format
has all of the information in it that it is ever going to
have. If you convert it to 96/32, you just spread the same
information over more bits.

More specifically, music in the 44/16 format can't possibly
have information it in above 22 KHz. If you upsample it to
the 96/32 format, there still won't have information in the
music above 22 KHz. The range from 22 to 48 KHz will be
silent, only maybe with a tiny amount of noise generated by
the upsampling process.  You can confirm this with the
Spectrum analysis tool.

Again music in the 44/16 format can't possibly have more
than about 96 dB dynamic range. If you upsample it to the
96/32 format, there still won't be any more actual dynamic
range. The range of dynamics below -96 dB will again be just
noise. Confirming this is a little more complex, but
technical experiments support what I just said.

While Audition can be very efficient and clean while it is
upsampling and downsampling, these operations must add a
tiny amount of noise. So, all that your upsampling and
downsampling does besides waste storage and time, is add a
tiny amount of noise.